US Warships Deployment Seen as Replay of 1983
Franklin Lamb interviewed by Al Manar, Lebanon
Franklin Pierce Lamb (PHD) is the co-founder and Director, of the
Americans Concerned for Middle East Peace, Washington DC. He's a
Senior Fellow in The Institute for Middle East Policy Dialogue, USA.
Of his many publications is his most recent: "The Price We Pay: A
quarter Century of Israel's Use of American Weapons in Lebanon -
Lamont Press, 2007." "Hezbollah: A Brief Guide for Beginners,"
expected soon in Arabic and English. According to Lamb, Barack v.
Hillary isn't the only Presidential election game in Washington
these days. There is also the Samir v. Walid v. Michel (as in
Geagea, Jumblatt and Suleiman) campaign underway as each seeks
through direct contact and surrogates, the US imprimatur in their
quests to lead Lebanon.
Interviewed by Mohamad Shmaysani
Q: First of all Dr. Lamb, who do you mean by the Welch
Club?
A: The "Welch Club" is a term that was used in Washington
a year and a half ago and it refers to David Welch who is the
Undersecretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs under Secretary
(Condoleezza) Rice. But he's a policy person and he works with the
administration contacts in Washington as well as the government of
Saudi Arabia and Jordan. But the term refers also to an intense
agenda for the neocons and the Zionist lobby. Added to the Welch
club within Lebanon, besides the embassy, are the allies here
including the "March 14 majority"; (Samir) Geagea, (MP Walid)
Jumblatt and others.
Q: How do you read the resignation of Admiral William
Fallon from the US Administration?
A: I think that he chose the increasing frustration with
certain American commanders that this has been a lost cause and that
we are paying an exorbitant price. A soldier is meant to be loyal
and dedicated, not to ask questions and to follow orders, but at a
certain point in a disastrous enterprise people tend to break for
their own self respect and that of their colleagues. I'm sure that
he's speaking for many others.
Q: In your latest article "Is the Bush administration
switching horses in Lebanon?" you said that the stature of both
(Lebanese army commander) General Suleiman and Jumblatt has slipped
while that of Geagea has rised in the eyes of the US administration.
How is that if the ruling bloc in Lebanon is still calling for the
election of Suleiman as president and if Jumblatt constitutes an
asset for any future confrontation with the opposition?
A: I think that Jumblatt has destroyed his candidacy as
an agent because of his comment about the seminary attack (in
Jerusalem describing it as a reaction to Israeli oppression) and
people in Washington don't trust him. But I think that the US
administration regards Jumblatt's role in a future confrontation as
minor. Hence, I think that the US had given up the idea of a civil
war in Lebanon, although they would love to have one, Israel would
love to have one because it would solve their problems, but I think
they have gone beyond that. Now, concerning General Suleiman,
according to what they are saying in Washington, there is a bit of
loosing trust on his that he would be too willing to hear out all
factions and sects in Lebanon and therefore his loyalty and devotion
to the US administration had couldn't be relied on because
apparently he's drawn some red lines. Geagea on the other hand is a
cookie-cutter copy of what the Bush administration looks like, even
including his idea of the Koleiat base (in northern Lebanon).
Interestingly, someone in the subcommittee on Middle East was
speaking about Geagea's history with that.
Apparently, in the late 80's they were using that airbase. We
knew that, but he had a particular affinity for the idea. They (US
administration) said that if he (Geagea) were in that position, that
would ease the way for this idea of a northern base; an idea that
been around for quite some time.
Q: How did the US public deal with Bush's administration
after inviting and warmly receiving a Lebanese person who was
sentenced to death and then his sentence was commuted to life in
prison from many crimes, on top of which is the assassination of
former Prime Minister Rashid Karameh in the mid 80's?
A: There wasn't a lot of information broadly broadcast.
There was a demonstration for two days by local and Lebanese groups
right across from the White House. I don't know to what extent its
deeply known around the country (Geagea's visit), but it is a
violation of our regulations, that normally you cannot gain a visa
with anything close to that record of conviction. But at this level
of politics, I think the White House just overrode it because they
can bring anybody if they want to and that's what happened. He was
considered so important that for more than a year, when he was
denied a visa, they decided to sign off on it and wave it; the White
House obviously wanted him and that is an important signal if they
are going to go for broke and in a way many people think they have
got to. They have lost Lebanon and many people like Cheney feel like
they have handed it to Iran without a fight. The argument is that
Bush's only hope for someplace in history - because he's widely
considered to be a disgrace to the US and the worst president in US
history – would be to go on with the offensive against Iran, go
after Hezbollah and hand the problem to Barack Obama – who I
believe would be the next president. I can't prove that, but there
are indications and I would look at the willingness to breach
American law in a big way by allowing a man with a least four murder
convictions to visit the US. I don't think it's perfectly clear that
the White House is absolutely committed to Geagea. I think they're
exploring him. If there is going to be something dramatic, what I
would be fascinated to know is what the others in the "majority"
leadership think of him. But I think that over a period of a year
and a half, a lot of candidates were vetted. I remember that article
that came out about former Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman; it became
almost a joke. Every time he would meet a new candidate, the first
question he would ask is: How are you going to disarm Hezbollah? It
wouldn't be tremendously surprising to me if they chose him
(Geagea), but it's interesting that he's even there. If he goes to
the White House then, I think, they are serious.
Q: What's the link between the US warships' deployment
off the coast of Lebanon and Al-Qaeda?
A: I think the Welch club had a role earlier in bringing
them and engaging them up north in Nahr el-Bared. I think it's a
show of force that is extremely dangerous for everybody including
the Americans, because some see it a s a replay in some respect of
1983 (US embassy bombing). The same advice goes for the US embassy
today that according to international law and the amendments of the
1963 Vienna Convention, the US embassy in 1983 had lost its
international protection and legitimacy. According to the Vienna
Convention, as an embassy you are given an area and you transplant
your jurisdiction from your country which is called
'extraterritoriality', and they give you certain leeway to protect
your diplomats. But if you breach the international law and engage
as a combatant, then you have no protection and that's how many
people have realized that according to international law the attack
on the US embassy in 1983 was legitimate, because the 8-member CIA
team was giving orders to the USS New Jersey. Every embassy contains
intelligence people and this is not violation to international law,
when individuals inside an embassy then act in a hostile way against
the country especially when it's living a civil war atmosphere like
Feltman did, then this is a violation. Say that the embassy now with
the new Charge D'Affairs (Michel) Sisson was in contact with the
boats offshore, and if things intensified then they are going to
loose their diplomatic protection, if they hadn't already. It's a
very dangerous game. In 1983, it was legitimate under international
law as (former US Defense Secretary) Donald Rumsfeld calls ' a
legitimate target of opportunity.' The same thing goes with the
Marines barracks; they may have arrived as peacekeepers but they
switched. We all know that and we know that they fought the local
forces and they were absolutely a legal target under international
law. I would say the flotilla off the shore is to pressure the
resistance and Syria, support Israel and threaten Iran. It's
obviously a very dangerous situation and we would just have to see
how close they would come and what are their maneuvers. The Russians
are watching them and they have opposed their presence. I still
don't believe that there will be a civil war in Lebanon but I
personally cannot see the Bush administration riding off Lebanon;
it's too big a defeat. They have lost Iraq, they're losing parts of
the Gulf, they have lost Afghanistan, the have lost enormous
goodwill for probably two generations. The American public is angry
and I think that we will see some change in the Congress, not just
the presidency.
Q: Do you think there will be an Israeli war?
A: I do think there has got to be one, because Israel
cannot live with this humiliation. It's lost its credibility not
just with its people and certain allies, but militarily. There is a
recent report and an analysis by a gentleman man named Willian Arki
in which he says that by no stretch of accepted military doctrine
can Israel's activity in 2006 be consider making sense. He said it
was a misuse of airpower and there were too many wrong targets. So
even the Pentagon has concluded what we, the NGOs and the people who
experienced the bombing have concluded here, is that it was a
hateful and racist frenzy to punish all of Lebanon, the people and
the supporters of Hezbollah. And with that kind of interpretation of
events I can't see them not reacting. Everybody seems to agree that
if there is an ignition of a hot conflict, it's going to be a bad
one that could extend to Syria.
Q: How do you think the Bush administration will deal
with the representation of Lebanon in the Arab summit in Damascus at
the end of this month?
A: I credit Capitol Hill sources that as of now the
standing order from the Bush administration to the Sanoria
government is to boycott the Syrian hosted Arab League Conference
unless a new Lebanese President is sworn in by March 29th. It is
possible that at the last minute the White House might allow someone
like former President Amine Gemayel to 'represent' Lebanon. Gemeyal
still has some goodwill in Washington from his 1982-88 tenure as
President of Lebanon and pushing a treaty with Israel. He is also
remembered in Washington for his efforts to mediate with Saddam
Hussein and the Bush administration and was considered for a time as
a possible successor to Kofi Annan as UN Secretary-General. If so,
Gemayels attendance will likely be announced shortly before the
Conference to keep pressure on Bashar Assad who Bush appears to
deeply resent on a political and personal level.
